Mexican Political Injustice and Solutions to Rebalance Political Power
Andrew Gray
Lynn University
Mexican Political Injustice and Solutions to Rebalance Political Power
The political injustice this paper is focusing on has a long history in the perpetuation of
Mexican governmental political regimes (political parties) whose primary motivation in policy
development has been based on holding onto political power over protecting the interests of the
citizens of Mexico as a whole. Political Injustice can be described as crimes of a political nature
which include war crimes, corruption, subversive activities, treason and repression (citation).
Political injustice may lead to alienation, apathy and stagnation or political instability, political
or national disintegration, revolution or foreign intervention. Longstanding corruption,
stagnation and the early political instability after Independence are prominent elements of
Mexico’s political dysfunctional system of government. Protection of the regime (PRI) over
protecting the rights of individual Mexican citizens has long been the driving force behind
governmental actions and as a result Mexican citizens have suffered substantial political
injustices. This has occurred all in the face of the Constitutional protections articulated in the
Mexican Constitution of 1929 and subsequent amendments through 2015.
The most important question of this historical framework is - What is the purpose of any
government (Mexican government): is it to recognize the democratic sovereignty of the Mexican
People (Title 2, Chapter I: National Sovereignty And Form Of State Governance (Articles
39-41) and to protect their civil rights (Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 1) or is it to protect historical
political autocracies and elite power structures for the benefit of the few? To help answer this it
is important to refer to the Mexican Constitution.
The Mexican Constitution (Updated up until 2015), in its written form addresses the
democratic sovereignty of the Mexican people and the government’s responsibility to protect
their civil rights. However, this Constitutional framework has been corrupted throughout its
history by the self-interests of party and power politics. As stated by the Constitution, national
sovereignty is held by the people:
ARTICLE 39 The national sovereignty is vested, originally and essentially, in the
people. Public power comes from the people and it is institutionalized for the
people’s benefit. People, at all times, have the inalienable right to change or
modify its form of government.
ARTICLE 40 It is in the will of the Mexican people to constitute into a
representative, democratic, secular, federal, Republic, made up by free and
sovereign States in everything related to its domestic regime, but united in a
federation established according to the principles of this fundamental law.
ARTICLE 41 People exercise sovereignty through the Powers of the Union and
the state powers, according to the distribution of jurisdictions as it is established
in this Constitution and the respective States’ Constitutions. The states’
constitutions, by no means shall challenge the stipulations and premises of the
federal pact. * Mexican Constitution
And the Mexican citizen’s civil rights are protected in:
CHAPTER I. HUMAN RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES
ARTICLE 1
In the United Mexican States, all individuals shall be entitled to the human rights granted
by this Constitution and the international treaties signed by the Mexican State, as well as
to the guarantees for the protection of these rights. Such human rights shall not be
restricted or suspended, except for the cases and under the conditions established by this
Constitution itself.
The provisions relating to human rights shall be interpreted according to this Constitution
and the international treaties on the subject, working in favor of the broader protection of
people at all times.
All authorities, in their areas of competence, are obliged to promote, respect, protect and
guarantee Human Rights, in accordance with the principles of universality,
interdependence, indivisibility and progressiveness. As a consequence, the State must
prevent, investigate, penalize and rectify violations to Human Rights, according to the
law. * Mexican Constitution
Although the Constitution guarantees a transparent democratic system of government the
government is failing in its Constitution responsibilities. It isn’t capable of controlling violence;
it’s not able to provide basic services in many areas; it is not protecting the universal rights to all
Mexican citizens; it is not able to control rampant corruption; and it isn’t able to create a sense
of trust for the people in the democratic process.
The political history of Mexico since Independence 1884 up to 2000 has been: to protect
the elite power structure and control. Previous to Mexican Independence, Mexico was controlled
by the Spanish directed government as a subject territory, principally designed as a mineral
wealth extraction territory. The people of Mexico were subjects of the crown and worked as serfs
in the voracious systematic extraction of silver and gold to feed the greed of the Spanish Empire.
After Spain finally withdrew from Mexico, and independence happened, the structure and
purpose of the subsequent governments was to perpetuate a top down power structure. Between
1821 and 1921, Mexico experienced more than 1,000 military revolts (Bolis 1947). Mexico had
36 presidents between 1821 and 1857 alone (Benítez 2004). The Mexican state finally took
shape through autocratic‐military regimes such as the Porfirio Díaz dictatorship (1876‐1911) and
the one‐party rule of the PRI (1928‐2000). Mexico’s political history has been obviously very
unstable since Independence. Of Mexico’s 68 presidents between 1821 and 2000, 29 were
civilians and 39 were military. There have also been four military juntas, as well. None of the
various elite groups in power have been able to conceive a broad, democratic security doctrine.
On the contrary, realpolitik and regime security form the tradition and true nature of the national
security permeating the political system. (Wiley) Mexico’s security model since independence
has been one of authoritarianism marked by corruption and impunity. Despite a weak transition
to democracy in the year 2000, the object of security is not the state, but the regime. (Wiley)
By concentrating regime security in the directives of the president and the cabinet, and
lacking a real system of accountability, decisions are made in terms of the actors that hold power
and control bureaucracies, budgets, and promotions. Without a doctrinal framework or a
comprehensive legal system, decisions are made based on the priorities of each administration-which, in the short term, are determined by the particular interests of the elite groups then in
power.
Regime security is the source of insecurity and the breeding ground for the increased
porosity of Mexico’s borders, the expulsion of migrants, and the rise of organized crime because
it is opposed to transparency, accountability, and legality; it acts at its own discretion and
threatens the state and the nation.
In the case of Mexico, an explanation of the decision‐making process under regime
security can be found in a premise that has been observed since 1943 to the present. The
Mexican Doctrine of War consists of securing the unquestionable loyalty of the military
command to the institution of the presidency. This alliance has enjoyed a lack of transparency at
the highest levels; while civilian authorities hold power for six years, the armed forces enjoy
their privileges and immunities on a permanent basis. The permanence of their privileges is the
basis of the loyalty and subordination of the armed forces to the institution of the presidency.
This explains the lack of coups d’etat in Mexico during the decades of the Cold War, which saw
extremely traumatic military takeovers in the Southern Cone, including in Chile (1973),
Argentina (1976), and Brazil (1964).
The Mexican people have never really had a long term experience with democracy and so
their only norm has been a government designed to perpetuate wealth and political power for the
ruling elite. This is a principal reason for Mexico’s present day struggles to become a vibrant,
safe and stable economic power.
Mexico's historical national security system has never been capable of protecting the
rights of its citizens in the face of systemic corruption, poor commitment to the mission, and a
poorly designed institutional framework to carry out the protection of its citizens. Up until today,
rising violent crime rates remain the greatest threat to public security and stability in Mexico. So
much of this violence is founded on deeply embedded corruption and the unstoppable drug
market of the cartels drug supply to the United States and the flow of military grade
weaponry back to Mexico and the cartels. These are the greatest threat to political stability and
social injustice found in Mexico.
There may well be progressive changes coming to Mexico through the new President
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s National Regeneration Movement (MoReNa) administration,
but that has yet to be seen.
The possible solutions to correcting the chronic dysfunction of political injustice in
Mexico may well be found in the EU Crisis Group recommendations. It certainly is a valuable
set of actions that I believe would go a long way to correcting much of the destructive forces in
Mexico and so diminish political injustice experienced by the many Mexican citizens.
Mexico is very interested in expanding its markets into the European Union . To do so, it
will need to comply with certain EU expectations which address corruption and need for
governmental oversight. This includes political process and justice department controls. The
summation of these expectations are found in the Crisis Groups for criteria (below)
EU should help address Mexico’s security crisis by:
1. Reframing “war on drugs” as a set of internal armed conflicts (regionally tailored security
policies) and not the direct responsibility of the Federal Army Forces. Each state has its
own particular issues which are best addressed by the regional government with the
support of the federal government.
2. Encourage Federal Government to return public security provisions (Federales) back to
civilian police forces followed by sparking up old efforts to reform the security and
justice system. (These reforms should stress above all the implementation of effective
oversight and accountability mechanisms led by independent civilian appointees with the
power to impose disciplinary measures on state actors, most urgently police, armed
forces, and prosecutorial services.
3.
Create an elite task force within federal police and prosecutorial bodies to give oversight
and accountability mechanisms some value by specialising in investigating corruption, collusion,
and violence within security forces. (also to protect local reform efforts). The task force should
have the authority and access to complete overview and
4.
Supporting security reform through technical assistance and sharing best practices with
Mexican policymakers, including during the regular political dialogues on security and justice
between the EU and Mexico. Specifically the EU could offer assistance for local mediation and
demobilisation efforts, women-led victims collectives searching for disappeared persons, the
National Search System for People, and promising police reform initiatives at the local level.
Advantages to Solutions * Advantages:
Reframing “war on drugs” would be advantageous to alleviate some political injustice by
decentralizing power of the national government and permitting the local state authorities to
manage strategies based on local knowledge and protection of innocent civilians.
1. Public Security returned to state control would be advantageous because it would
empower the local police to manage local security and so it can minimize corruption and
damaging behavior of a less community connected federal force. Local knowledge is
often much more effective than fire power in building trust and community involvement.
2. An Elite Task force for Federal Police and Prosecutors would ensure anti-corruption
efforts would have much more transparency and would reduce the negative effects on
local citizens of a corrupt justice system.
3. Security Force technical assistance and best practices would enable local and national
police to learn the best methods for enforcing laws and maintaining higher levels of trust.
This would elevate the respectability of the police forces in the eyes of the citizens of
Mexico and would provide them with much better political justice and equality before the
law.
Mexico has a long way to go to reduce the embedded political injustices that have been part of
the Mexican culture. A commitment over time by an honest administration applying the EU
criteria would go a long way to building confidence in the integrity of the government. However,
it will be difficult to flush out the social expectation and change the historical way of doing
business. It will take more than just a generation.
References
Treating Mexico's Epidemic of Violence under the López Obrador Government. (2019, April 18).
Retrieved from https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/mexico/treating-mexicosepidemic-violence-under-lopez-obrador-government
Sumano, A. R. (2019, January 7). Mexico's National Security Paradoxes and Threats in a
Geopolitical Context. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/polp.12287
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015.pdf?lang=en
Purchase answer to see full
attachment